Massachusetts Bids To Restrict Internet Indecency

Remember the Communications Decency Act? Enacted 1996, found unconstitutional 1997. Or its successor attempt to reduce discourse on the Internet to what is suitable for 8-year-olds, the Child Online Protection Act? Invalidated 2003. Seven state laws attempting to restrict Internet content on grounds of decency have been struck down. Despite all this, Massachusetts has now added a couple of paragraphs to its (traditionally bricks-and-mortar) indecency law that applies a "harmful to minors" test to Internet content. The ACLU of Massachusetts and others have brought suit to block the law, which went into effect on July 11. Coincidentally, today a US appeals court tossed out the FCC's indecency policy.

Comments

Just remove the "I" and the "n" and I'm all for it

[sjonke]

And not in "Internet" either.

Mature

[DIplomatic]

Rather than try and dumb down the internet to what is suitable for 8-year-olds, I would rather raise children to be mature and handle adult content.

The irony here is regardless of some law, young kids see crazy hardcore sh*t on the internet every day. So I guess I'm revising my first sentence to say that I would rather raise the maturity of adults to cope with the fact that kids can handle adult content.

Re:Mature

[0racle]

Maybe it would be just better for parents to be responsible and for people to realize there is a lot of stuff not produced for kids, because there are a lot of people that are not kids.

Unfortunately, common sense doesn't get people elected.

Re:Mature

[ElectricTurtle]

I tried to come up with a civil way to say this, but I can't. Those must be some dumb kids. If they have such poverty of imagination or lack of curiosity that all they want to know about or see when faced with potential of the entire world comes from the website of a TV network... I am filled with overwhelming pity.

Re:Mature

[Hatta]

Putting kids on disney or nickelodeon and giving them access to nothing else is like putting them in a mcdonalds and never feeding them anything else. Sure, they won't die right away. They might even believe they like it. But you're depriving them of a whole world of healthy experiences.

And I'd argue that to some extent disney and nickelodeon are harmful to kids. They exist only to market products to your children. They use all sorts of psychological tricks on your children to manipulate them. Porn on the other hand is targeted towards adults. If a pre-pubescent kid finds porn, they say "ew" and click away to something else. It's really no big deal, unless it's some CP that some perv is trying to push on them. In that case, where do you think the pervs are going to go to find victims?

Re:Mature

[flajann]

Yeah, how about parents being RESPONSIBLE to keep their own kids away from the "harmful content" of the Internet, if they feel that way, rather than a lone state attempting to restrict the entire world according to what they consider "decent".

The more I see from Massachusetts, the more the term "Mass Holes" apply. These issues were settled eons ago.

And let PARENTS, not the friggin' STATE, be responsible for the kids. Duh. Sick of the government trying to usurp my role as parent!!! CUT IT OUT ALREADY!

Re:Mature

[ElectricTurtle]

It is when one is content with ignorance. Do you praise the stagnant mind? Is feeling good a better thing than knowledge, than truth? Then by all means, put amusements first, set on a foundation of comforting lies, and we can cultivate this contentment.

Being content when you know little is easy. Being content when you know much is hard. That's why character is valued.

Re:Mature

[eln]

I just put my 8 and 10 yr olds on disney.com or nickelodeon.com and they never bother to try to find the rest of the net.

...yet. My kids are the same age, and while not limited to those sites, they tend to only seek out stuff that I find appropriate, like cartoons and games. They also spend a lot of time on Wikipedia, but usually only to look up stuff they learned at school, or to look up the actors in their favorite shows.

At some point, though, usually around the beginning of puberty (closer than you think for your 10 year old), they're going to start seeking this stuff out. No matter what you try to do to stop them, they'll find it eventually just like we found it when we were their age. We found it in scrambled cable channels and back issues of Playboy, they'll find it online. The stuff they'll find is likely to be a lot more explicit than the stuff we were able to find, although some of the images I found on the Internet at the tender age of 13, *mumble* years ago, were pretty hardcore. Of course, now they have full-motion video instead of the still images and occasional VHS tapes we had, but the concept is much the same.

The trick with dealing with all this is not to go crazy when they inevitably find it, but rather to take the time to explain what they're seeing in the greater context of the world. Being taught that porn is shameful and that they've done something horribly wrong by looking at it will do far more damage than simply helping them to put porn in its proper context. On the other hand, ignoring it completely and leaving them to their own devices to gather explanations of what they're seeing will leave them with unrealistic expectations of sex and intimacy that will damage them in the long run as well.

The key to all this is explaining topics as they come up. Many parents get asked by their very young children about sex and, rather than trying to explain it in an age-appropriate manner (detailed anatomical diagrams are probably not appropriate for 5 year olds, for example, since they won't understand them anyway), they try to avoid the question, or worse make the child feel as if they've done something wrong by asking it at all. This leads children to believe sex is a topic to be avoided, and they'll learn to be embarrassed about it and not want to talk to you about it. Later, when they find all this hardcore porn, they'll hide it from you and you'll never know what they've found or have the opportunity to explain it to them.

If you raise your kids to understand that they can talk to you about anything and you'll do your best to explain it to them in terms they can understand, they'll be more likely to give you the opportunity to help them process indecent material in a healthy way. If you raise your kids to think of sex as something not to be discussed even with you, they'll end up finding the stuff anyway but likely will not deal with it in a healthy way.

Re:Mature

[commodore64_love]

>>>for people to realize there is a lot of stuff not produced for kids

Let's get to to the CORE of this issue - it's those damn Republicans and their bible-thumping conservatism. The sooner we kick them out of Masschusetts' legislature, the sooner we can repeal idiotic laws like this.

(someone whispers in my ear) Whaddya mean MA is a Democrat-run state?

 

Re:Mature

[ElectricTurtle]

Speaking as somebody who found porn before puberty, I was not disgusted, but rather fascinated (heh heh, that's a joke for etymologists). Disgust is not a natural response, but a socially conditioned response, something I didn't really take to.

Re:Mature

[Anonymous Coward]

the kids are fucking 8 and 10 you condescending piece of shit. i'm sure you spent your time contemplating the fate of the universe at that age, not sitting in the corner staring at a bug with your finger up your nose.

Re:Mature

[jgagnon]

Limiting your exposure to the Internet does not make you ignorant, nor stagnant, nor does exposure to it make you the opposite. It is just a tool and a repository of information. Because two kids don't skip all around the Internet to explore other options does not make them "less" in any way. They may choose to expand their minds offline with other activities, such as reading books or just going outside and using their imaginations.

That fact that you immediately assume they are "dumb" is a limitation of your character, not theirs or their parents'.

Re:Mature

[Coren22]

It is called Flash games, they rather enjoy them. They also like playing on the Wii and playing Eve Online. They just haven't shown interest in the majority of the internet yet. I am not expecting that to last long, but by then I expect they will also be mature enough to handle what is out there.

Re:Mature

[Coren22]

Did I say at any point I prevent them from going anywhere else? They just prefer to play the disney and nickelodeon games with their favorite cartoon characters. At 10 years old, you are telling me you had more interests then Lego, Bugs Bunny, or whatever was available at the time?

Re:Mature

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Feeling good is better than knowledge or truth. I would gladly trade my over awareness and depression for happiness and ignorance. Life is a single go around, I'd rather be happy then right. Took me 45 years to come to this conclusion. I would have had a better life if I stayed ignorant. So would you.

Re:Mature

[Kjella]

Rather than try and dumb down the internet to what is suitable for 8-year-olds, I would rather raise children to be mature and handle adult content.

Even if you could compress the maturity normally gained from 0-18 into 0-14 or 0-10, an eight year old will not be ready for everything that's on the Internet. And thinking back how simplistic my thinking was despite being a bright kid, I don't think you can compress it that much either. Children don't start out as little adults and expecting them to just deal with everything from day one is completely unrealistic. Oh they might "deal" in the same way as children growing up with alcoholics and abusers and drug addicts and many more worse fates than looking at bad stuff on the Internet, but not in a good way. Don't get me wrong, I'm far from a moral prude that thinks we should shield kids from everything bad until they're 18. But there has to be room to become mature, to gradually learn to handle adult content before you are that child. And for what it's worth, even outside the Internet I don't think the accelerated adulthood society has been pushing the last decades does children good. I see children now trying to dress, talk, act and be adults much earlier despite still being a little boy or girl on the inside. I think you lose a lot by fast tracking through your childhood.

Re:Mature

[jgagnon]

This may surprise you, but it is possible for people to grow up and be intelligent, productive members of society without the Internet. I think it has even happened before, at least once or twice. :p

But in all seriousness, I DO think that your assumption was and continues to be unreasonable. Kids are not stupid simply because they fail to take advantage of any given potential. Some people become doctors, some people become computer programmers, and some people do both (few do both well). You might even be able to argue that any person could become either if they so chose. But not every programmer that fails to learn about being a doctor is stupid nor is every doctor that fails to learn how to program a computer. Exploring one potential takes time away from exploration of another.

I chose to become a computer programmer and know very little about being a doctor. I do not consider my "lack of interest in the potential of becoming a doctor" as any sort of measure of stupidity, laziness, or being less than any doctor I have met.

Re:Mature

[Gogogoch]

The reply above is not "Troll", please mod up.

Kids of 8 and 10 are quite happy to play in those type of website. How can the other poster be so insulting and haughty considering that these websites are fascinating and interactive (for that age) and designed to suck kids in. The poster clearly has no experience with young kids.

Re:Mature

[commodore64_love]

>>>Most democrats are bible-thumping "conservatives" too.

No that can't be. It makes my brain hurt to think Democrats are pro-"impose morality" too. Only the Republicans are supposed to be like that. I think I'll just pretend I didn't hear that. Tra-Lalalalalalala

Re:Mature

[Anonymous Coward]

It's unreasonable to extrapolate that conclusion for the same reasons it's unreasonable to extrapolate a poorly sampled signal. You don't have nearly enough data to support such a condescending and disrespectful conclusion.

How much time do the kids actually spend on the internet?

What activities do they enjoy outside the internet, and how long do they spend doing those activities?

At least those two pieces of information are absolutely critical to claiming any support for your statement. We don't need to actually answer those questions, because really it comes down to the fact that you're just a smarter-than-thou jerk. Feel free to explore the internet to get more opinions.

Re:Mature

[MBGMorden]

Same here. First porn I saw I found surfing around on our "big dish" satellite (satellite F4, channel 18 - twas the Spice Channel). My parents had a hacked box that got every channel so the porn came in along with everything else.

I didn't find it disgusting. Mostly just interesting. I'd played "show me yours and I'll show you mine" with a few neighborhood girls before, but we were all between 4 and 10 doing that. First time I flipped to that channel and saw how different an adult woman looked, it definitely sparked my curiosity. Particularly given that this was the early 90's and the whole "shaving" revolution hadn't taken place yet, so things looked VERY different down there than what I'd seen before.

Re:Mature

[Sir_Lewk]

"Expanding your mind without the internet" is as backward these days as "expanding your mind without books" was years ago. It may be possible, but you are placed at a huge disadvantage. Perhaps instead of encouraging his children to play games on the internet, he should be encouraging them to visit age appropriate educational websites.

Re:Mature

[mister_playboy]

For those of us who have closed our Facebook accounts:

http://freestateproject.org/

Re:Mature

[c6gunner]

At 8 I was programming on a Commodore 64, and at 10 I was exploring BBS's. At neither age did I find much amusement in watching talking sponges act like morons. While I certainly did enjoy SOME kids shows, and liked playing games as much as any child, there's no way in hell I would have turned down an opportunity to explore a worldwide repository of knowledge. I'd have to agree with the original commenter - such behavior certainly does demonstrate a lack of imagination and curiosity. It's not something that's unique to kids, either - plenty of adults seem to think that the internet is nothing more than facebook, e-mail, youtube, and online banking.

Re:Mature

[NotBornYesterday]

As a native, let me say that "massachusetts liberal" is just a polite euphemism for "nanny-state prude". Don't forget our Puritan roots.

Plus, they need a pre-election distraction to get people's minds off the deficit spending and tax raising going on in the halls of power in Boston. Because some of those dictators-for-life might get voted out if any focus falls on the real issues ...

Re:Mature

[HeckRuler]

Oh aye, it might be a nice site. And it's not a bad thing that the kids enjoy it. We're fine with that.
It's the "they never bother to try to find the rest of the net." part that utterly disgusts us. Well, me anyway. They're so attuned to disney.com that they won't go anywhere else?
It's like you bring your kids to the library, and for some reason they have an infatuation with poems. And you're proud that they don't try to read a novel or something crazy like that.

Re:Mature

[ElectricTurtle]

Ah, I see, we can excuse one-dimension behavior because of the time involved. So if I only go to the library to read Garfield comics, and I only go for a short time, that excuses the fact that I am wasting my access to the rest of human knowledge, after all, who knows what else I might be doing? Surely, this occasional, short reading of Garfields being my only use of a library indicates nothing about other potential approaches to life.

Absurd. A bald exculpation for no other sake than the escape of condemnation.

Re:Mature

[imakemusic]

That will probably take care of itself when some of those 8-year-olds grow up and go into politics...if any of them can manage to live a normal life after seeing Goatse that is.

Only stuck down for vagueness

[compro01]

The FCC's rules only got struck down for being too vague. If they formulate a list of what words they're not allowed to say (Carlin's list, for example), it would be allowed.

Re:Just remove the "I" and the "n" and I'm all for

[jguevin]

Decency. Took me a minute to figure that one out.

Re:Taxachusetts

[jollyreaper]

First they took our money. Then they took our freedom.

But they will never take our Pornography!!!

I know that's the last thing I'd want to take from anyone's cold, dead hands.

Implications for separation of power...

[nebaz]

You know, I normally take a rather conservative view on legislature vs judicial power breakdown. I'm not a fan of things like having the judiciary set environmental limits, for example, and would prefer the legislature not abdicate their responsibility. (Don't get me started on all of the agencies that are created because Congress doesn't legislate anymore). On the other hand, when I see all the junk that Congress does pass, which is blatantly unconstitutional (Internet Decency act, COPA, etC), and that they probably know are unconstitutional, I'm not sure what I think about it anymore.

Re:Implications for separation of power...

[commodore64_love]

Clearly the Constitution needs to be amended that, if any representative violates his oath to observe the constitution, then he/she will be charged with treason. With greater responsibility comes greater rewards AND punishment.

The Internet: Banned in Boston

[John Hasler]

Banned in Boston

Re:The Internet: Banned in Boston

[noidentity]

Isn't that the simpler solution? Just cut off all Internet access in Boston, and let anyone who doesn't want that bullshit move elsewhere. Pretty soon nobody will be left there, and the problem will be solved.

Sorry, Massachussets.

[Drakkenmensch]

Your state government is about to restrict access to the rest of the world through a firewall. And by firewall, I mean a giant moat filled with burning gasoline. 'cause it's the only way you'll keep out the rest of the world!

Re:FCC vs Ma law

[unix1]

The FCC decision is much more far reaching and frankly will hopefully restore some sense to TV and radio.

That won't happen. The networks are still going to censor themselves. They just won't have to pay multi-million dollar fines to the government if something slips through.

If the Obama administration is smart it will not even try to appeal this.

I'm not defending this but look at it this way - if he doesn't appeal it will likely be used against him during the next elections. The issues are deeper than this.

Re:Just remove the "I" and the "n" and I'm all for

[Anonymous Coward]

My agenda rarely aligns with the ACLU, but liberal legislators are always trying strip freedoms under the auspices of protection. Just leave people alone legislators, just leave them alone.

Re:Just remove the "I" and the "n" and I'm all for

[hardburn]

It's a good thing we have ultra-conservative legislators like Russ Feingold opposing these things.

Re:uh, no, courts have rules kids must have porn.

[Anubis350]

Not all adults have credit cards (and honestly, a lot of adults that have credit cards shouldnt :-p)

Reasonable doubt?

[Hatta]

How do you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that something is "harmful to minors"?

Re:Reasonable doubt?

[Adrian Lopez]

How do you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that something is "harmful to minors"?

The same way it's always been done: offer speculation with no basis in reality, but treat it as fact.

Re:Reasonable doubt?

[mooingyak]

How do you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that something is "harmful to minors"?

Quite simple really. Just demonstrate that all the minors who viewed the material are now dead as a direct result.

Religion

[nacturation]

Religion is harmful to minors. Discuss.

Re:Religion

[Nadaka]

Religion can't be all bad...

It made me the atheist I am today.

Re:Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. We know the Catholic Church has a long history of harboring pedophiles, and I don't need to recite the long list of atrocities committed in the name of "The LORD". Not to mention that one book - y'know, the one with genocide, child abuse and incest, what's it called...

Oh yeah, the Bible! Gotta ban the *fuck* outta that - for the children, of course!

Re:Religion

[dkleinsc]

Well, thank God for that!

Re:Religion

[Nadaka]

I gave up trying to cure people of religion a long time ago.

A: It is every bit as egotistical as them attempting to impose their religion on others.

B: Religion is not malignant in most of the people that have it. It is even beneficial on rare occasions.

C: It doesn't work anyway. For those that are really harmed or harmful by their religion, their minds are so barred, chained and locked in ignorance and faith that they are unassailable by any morally acceptable action.

Re:Religion

[jesset77]

Yep, in today's narcissistic vengeful judgemental selfish money-worshiping greedhead society I can see where that's problematic. It could really screw a kid up.

What screws a kid up is that they are told this by the narcissistic vengeful judgemental selfish money-worshiping greedheads.

That, and you're really cherry picking the scriptures there. It's not any harder for me to pull peaceful-sounding nuggets of wisdom out of Mein Kampf.

Re:Religion

[mahadiga]

"Religion was born when the first con man met the first fool." --Mark Twain

Re:Just remove the "I" and the "n" and I'm all for

[Shakrai]

Unfortunately it would seem that Feingold is the exception rather than the rule when it comes to Congress-critters supporting our civil liberties.

Remember the Communications Decency Act?

[countertrolling]

Yep, sure do. It was pushed by a particular political party that makes a lot of noise about personal freedoms. Not that the "opposition" put up any.. These people should be charged with wasting the court's time that is spent striking them down. How often do we need to remind them what the 1st Amendment actually says?

Re:uh, no, courts have rules kids must have porn.

[adamstew]

... And any kid can go in to a walmart and buy a pre-paid master card to just buy it on the internet with anyway.

The iPhone states

[zikigawafapula]

If you want porn you can move to New York.

Re:Just remove the "I" and the "n" and I'm all for

[Nadaka]

Its not just people claiming to be liberals that try to strip away freedom for your own protection. Those claiming to be conservatives do it just as much, and most likely more.

The words liberal and conservative used to have very different meanings. Now they are just different flavors of fascism.

Constitutional vagueness

[Citizen of Earth]

I've always suspected that "government shall make no law" thingy was too confusingly vague.

Re:Normal or Perverted?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why didn't they just put: "missionary, not enjoyable to either party, no condom, and must result in the production of offspring."

You. Sick. Bastard.

Re:Just remove the "I" and the "n" and I'm all for

[Beardo the Bearded]

Yes, you're perfectly correct that they're neither liberal nor conservative. They aren't even left- or right- wing. They're all a bunch of fascists.

A conservative government would have a small footprint, providing minimal services and not spending more than it takes in.

A liberal government would have few, if any, rules.

I think I saw the quote here on /. first, but it's by Twain. "Censorship is saying a man can't have a steak because a baby can't chew it."

Re:Taxachusetts

[Beardo the Bearded]

That's called "The Stranger".

Re:Someone here tell me

[couchslug]

There isn't much argument for regulating it outside of the internet either.

The Internet is rated R

[AlgorithMan]

Can your kid close a contract with an ISP? No, YOU do that and hence YOU are responsible for supervision of your kid's internet usage. If you put your kids in front of the tubes while you do something more fun, then YOU are responsible for anything bad that happens to the kid's mind.

You want to censor the whole world, just so you can neglect your kids without remorse? F*CK YOU!

Obligatory XKCD

[Hurricane78]

Obligatory XKCD: http://xkcd.com/751/

Re:Just remove the "I" and the "n" and I'm all for

[Aquitaine]

The difference is that conservatives are being hypocrites when they support this stuff while liberals are being consistent with a general liberal philosophy that 'government knows best.' Obviously there are a lot of liberal ideologies out there and a lot of conservative ones as well, but the generalized conservative viewpoint of 'government should stay out of our lives' doesn't translate well to stuff like this, and when conservatives try to do it, they typically get in trouble when shoe-horning something like that into an otherwise conservative platform. You see conservatives try and justify this stuff all the time, but it's typically the same populist arguments that liberals use, e.g. 'declining moral values of society,' and that kind of thing. It's no less hypocritical when conservatives try to block more emotionally-charged issues like abortion. The late George Carlin quotes Reagan's 'government should be off our back' and then makes a crack about 'but they can be in a woman's uterus' in pointing out this inconsistency.

I wouldn't say that conservatives do it 'most likely more' as far as free speech goes, as the big nanny states are the ones that get away with this the most today -- look no further than Australia. The US is probably more 'to the right' on free speech issues than a lot of the 'civilized world' in that you see stuff like this struck down again and again.

Before the internet there was porn...

[gestalt_n_pepper]

which as a person born in nineteen fifty (mumble, mumble), I remember quite well. It was in the public library, museums, photography magazines, news stands, posters....

Unless the conservative christian talibani want to ban all those things and confine us all to our homes where presumably we'll sing about Jesus all day, it's unlikely that they'll even slow down the average adolescent male.

Re:Just remove the "I" and the "n" and I'm all for

[Anonymous Coward]

Heinlein, not Twain. "It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak."

Harmful?

[b4upoo]

Although it is the social custom in the US to keep kids in the dark over sexual content or cursing has anyone, anywhere, actually offered real proof that such things directly harm children? I suspect that kids walking by dear old dad watching hard core porn in the living room are probably not much interested and rarely suffer any harm from such things. If anyone is harmed by cursing and porn it is more probably adults who can't handle it.

Re:uh, no, courts have rules kids must have porn.

[geekoid]

the kid who is old enough to get to the store and buy a prepaid mastercard is at the age I'm not to concerned with.

The problem that most people refuse to recognize is that there are a whole lot of people that try to trick people into going to sites they never intended to go to.

So someone who manages to spoof my little pony site may lead kids to sites their parents don't want them going to.